SRI THIRUVENGADA RAMANUJACHARIAR Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the first writ petition, the Petitioner has challenged the validity of an order passed by the State Government on 12th March, 1974, directing the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Madras, to take action against the Petitioner for delegating his powers as hereditary trustee. In the second writ petition, the same Petitioner, has questioned the validity of the memo, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments( Administration )Department, Cuddalore informing him that any act done by the power of attorney agent on behalf of the Petitioner, will not be recognized.

(2.) The Petitioner, who is the same in both cases, is admittedly the hereditary trustee of Arulthiru Thriruvikramaswami Thirukoil, Thirukoilur Town, South Arcot District. He has given the general power of attorney in favour of two persons, viz. T.R. Raghavachari and T.R. Soundararajan, with regard to the management of the properties of the temple. Under the said power of attorney, the Petitioner has authorised them to execute document on his behalf, appear before both civil and criminal Courts and to collect outstandings due to the temple, etc. Construing the said power of attorney as delegation of the office of the hereditary trustee, the Government have issued a memo, dated 12th March 1974, wherein it has been stated that a trustee cannot delegate his functions to any other as per the decision in Shree Shree Gopal Shreedhar Mahadev v/s. Shasheebhushan Sarkar, (1933) I.L.R. 60 Cal. 111 and directed the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments to take action against him in the matter for the alleged delegation of the office of trusteeship.

(3.) In pursuance of the above memo, of the Government, the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Cuddalore, has issued a memo, dated 3rd May 1974 informing the Petitioner that any action done by the power agents, will not be accepted by the Department as the Petitioner as a trustee cannot delegate his functions. The validity of the said order of the Government as well as the consequential order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, have been challenged in these two writ petitions.